(Last edited 20130606 at 18:44)
Sea Activities have nothing different from other Subdivisions. This Subdivision is conceived as in itself, because the problems are very particular. External contacts are very intense, since there are few seas in the world that have all their shores in a single country.
Therefore, there is in Defense (Navy Army) a Direction to the dialogue with the Activities of the Sea and in the Activities of the Sea there is a Direction for the dialogue with the Defense (Navy Army). It is also very very important to consider the External Council of the Activities of the Sea, for the reasons elucidated above. The border sea and territorial waters issues, such as international waters, involve not only issues of geo-political nature, but also and in particular manner all problems of international limitations in the types and quantity of the catch, in the name of a mutual respect of those using the marine resources.
Even in the Sea, as in Subdivisions already examined, all those who want to start a new business will receive funding from Credit Banks and they will be subject to permissions exactly how industry, crafts, agriculture and trade. It is therefore unnecessary to write here repetitions. Equally applies to companies of the sea passed in legacy and/or sold to others.
Important to note that the Republic puts terms (generally ten years) within which the rights acquired by members (Sea Activities) cannot be trampled. This is crucial for the pacts that the Republic will underwrite with international organizations, like the EU and so on.
We must point out that, in our perspective, the new Republic will not have to learn anything from entities such the European Union, especially if the latter does not change its views, its principles and its behaviour. Too many are the existing prejudices and diversities, with different weights and measures. Among all you can criticize the sore point is the systematic depreciation of the individual and of his traditions in the face of large international corporations. It is not a model of values that our type of Republic shares, nor intend to share.
We call this “the problem of the Colonnata lard”: particular handcrafted productions, which constitute a richness for the countries with centuries-old traditions, are passed as ridiculous, and it is not clear if this happens for stupidity or to support large organizations that must offer products via supermarkets in uniform amounts and poor quality also: see confirming the content in chocolate and other examples. The Republic wants to enhance the traditions and related products, not destroy everything in the name of a silly uniformism.
We must also begin to realize that, if we want to create a society that does not have the defects of the current one, we even speak about something: you can’t trample the rights already acquired in the name of new rights; a time of respect is necessary, otherwise no programming will never be possible.
Finally, there is a conflict between the technological evolution and the size of a country. Centuries ago, local demands were ridiculously low and therefore the EU could in theory make sense, like the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Nowadays, with technical and cultural diversities, also a modern population up to five million people may be ungovernable by a centre of power as the European Union. The EU imposes uniform laws, despite himself. At this point the French Enology (added sugar?) already requires different regulations from the Italian Enology and southern Italian in particular.
We will give elsewhere further proof that the climate not only affects the costumes, but distant and different territories from West to East are increasing fatalism, and from South to North will decrease individualism.
However, these things aren’t even known by the EU summits and, if they were, would probably be ignored. There is most likely a power outlet, driven by unmovable bureaucrats, in advanced course. In essence, the European Union is going towards an italian bureaucratic model…
The warm climate that influences the European character of the South can be seen badly by the north Europeans, yet come to the South for their holidays. In order to find someone who hosts them, and who houses them, someone living in the South should necessarily exist.
We now say a tautology: “Europe is. It is what it is. You cannot change the people with an act of imperio.”
Some charismatic and charming guys, as leaders, would (and will) hardly work to change five million people with the same traditions: imagine if some salaried bureaucrats will be able to change and make uniformed three hundred million people who have (hear, please…): languages, customs, traditions, blood groups, religions, artistic trend, powers, music, spiritual mood, all different. A madness. A real madness.
If Southern Europeans had all that Northern Europeans claim, they would become better than those of the North, because they would have the northerners qualities more their own qualities (those of the South) that those in the North have not. In short, diversity is seen as a limitation. This is true, unless Northern Europeans claim that in the South there are only flaws: in this case, Mediterranean Europeans disagree and a fortiori it would be better to make some little countries of five millions of people each, such as Catalonia, Scotland …
We must re-read the books written by Emile Benveniste, Georges Dumézil, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and by the marvelous James Frazer.
The mistake was to put all together, without understanding the true objectives of France and Germany. For all those who created the European Union, we can consider two cases: Or they did not understand what they were doing and therefore they are not able to lead the European Union; or they had understood perfectly and, in perfect bad faith, they nevertheless went ahead. Even in this case, they cannot lead the European Union.